Introduction:

In a significant ruling reinforcing the principle that public sector undertakings must function as “model employers,” the Calcutta High Court refused to interfere with an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Asansol, directing compassionate appointment to the son of a deceased coal worker after nearly three decades of inaction. Justice Shampa Dutt Paul upheld the Tribunal’s order granting employment to Ranjit Mahali, son of a deceased wagon loader employed under Eastern Coalfields Limited, while slightly modifying the relief in relation to seniority and service benefits. The Court categorically held that an employer cannot defeat a dependent’s legitimate claim for compassionate appointment by keeping the application pending for decades and subsequently raising an age bar under the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA). The judgment emphasises that delay attributable to the employer cannot be used to prejudice a bona fide claimant and that a State instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution must act fairly and responsibly.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner-Employer:

Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL), challenging the award under Article 226, contended that the Tribunal had erred in directing compassionate appointment after an extraordinary lapse of time. The company argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but an exception carved out to mitigate immediate financial hardship faced by the family of a deceased employee. According to ECL, the very object of compassionate employment is to provide immediate succour, and once decades have passed, the underlying purpose stands frustrated. It was submitted that under the applicable provisions of the NCWA, a male dependent is not eligible for employment if he has crossed 35 years of age. Since the claimant had long exceeded the age limit by the time the dispute was adjudicated, the company argued that no direction for appointment could be issued contrary to the agreed wage settlement terms. The petitioner relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rourkela Steel Plant v. Union of India, where belated claims for compassionate appointment were declined on the ground that such appointments are meant to meet immediate need and cannot be entertained after inordinate delay. ECL maintained that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the binding nature of this precedent and wrongly granted relief. It was further argued that the industrial dispute was raised years after the death of the employee and that such stale claims ought not to be entertained. The employer emphasised that there was no vested right to compassionate employment and that courts must exercise restraint in directing appointment contrary to scheme provisions and age restrictions.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent-Dependent:

On the other hand, the respondent-claimant contended that the delay in grant of compassionate appointment was entirely attributable to the employer. His mother, an employee of ECL, died in harness on 21 June 1993. Within three months of her demise, he submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment as her nominee and dependent. The company processed the application to the extent of issuing a letter for medical examination in 1996, and he was declared “fit for any job in mine.” However, despite establishing eligibility and medical fitness, the company did not communicate any rejection or final decision. The claimant argued that he remained in limbo for years, repeatedly approaching authorities and eventually raising an industrial dispute through the union. The matter was referred to the CGIT in 2006 under the Industrial Disputes Act, and only in 2023 did the Tribunal finally grant relief. It was contended that throughout this prolonged period, the claimant had diligently pursued his claim and that no delay could be attributed to him. The respondent distinguished the Rourkela Steel Plant decision on the ground that in that case there had been a prior rejection of the claim, whereas in the present case there was no rejection at all—only unexplained inaction. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., wherein it was held that lapse of time cannot be determinative where delay is caused by prolonged litigation or administrative inaction, and that a bona fide claimant cannot be penalised for circumstances beyond his control. The respondent further submitted that ECL, being a public sector undertaking and an authority under Article 12, is obligated to act as a model employer and cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

Court’s Analysis and Findings:

Justice Shampa Dutt Paul undertook a careful examination of the factual matrix and legal principles governing compassionate appointment. The Court first noted that the claimant had applied within three months of his mother’s death and that his eligibility was acknowledged by the employer itself when he was called for medical examination and declared fit. Significantly, the management never issued any order rejecting the application. The Court observed that keeping an application pending indefinitely without communication amounts to arbitrary conduct. The Court rejected the employer’s attempt to invoke the age bar under the NCWA after decades of inaction. It held that the delay was entirely attributable to the employer and that the claimant had been diligently pursuing his rights through appropriate legal channels. In such circumstances, it would be unjust to allow the employer to rely on the claimant’s age, which increased solely because of the employer’s own inaction. The Bench distinguished Rourkela Steel Plant v. Union of India, noting that in that case the claim had been rejected earlier and the Court was dealing with a belated revival. In contrast, the present case involved continuous pendency without rejection. The Court found the principles laid down in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. more applicable, reiterating that delay arising from administrative lethargy or litigation cannot defeat a legitimate claim where the claimant is not at fault. The High Court emphasised that a public sector undertaking must function as a model employer, adhering to fairness and reasonableness. It observed that the socio-economic background of the family warranted compassionate consideration and that the employer’s conduct in keeping the matter pending for nearly 30 years was contrary to the object of compassionate appointment schemes. The Court affirmed the Tribunal’s direction granting employment within two months and upholding damages of ₹10,000 per month for further delay. However, it modified the relief concerning service benefits and seniority. The Court directed that the claimant’s seniority be notionally counted from the date of reference, i.e., 24 May 2006, with notional pay fixation, increments, and consequential benefits under the applicable NCWA. Arrears based on such notional fixation were ordered to be paid within one month. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it and vacated interim orders.